John Carter, the movie has not yet been reviewed on Mystery*File and this is a movie that demands to be mentioned here. I call it the Pulp Movie of the Century because it actually is. It has been 100 years since the novel appeared in the pulp, All-Story, as a six-part serial in 1912. The movie has been slammed by the critics and is not doing well at the box office, but it has been receiving very favorable comments on some discussion groups I belong to that are focused on pulpish subjects.

Frankly, I don’t think some of the critics know what they are talking about. Despite some changes, this is a fairly faithful adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels about Mars. His first published work was Under the Moons of Mars in All-Story and was the big first success in his Mars series.

Without this serial in 1912, All-Story and Science Fiction as we know it might have had a different history. Burroughs was the driving force behind the decision by the All-Story editors to encourage their writers to write what has been called the Scientific Romance.

When Sam Moskowitz decided to do a collection of SF stories from the Munsey pulps, he called it Under the Moons of Mars. (This by way, is a far better title than John Carter.) In addition to the stories, Moskowitz also included an excellent long history of SF in the pulp magazines up to 1920.

What do I mean about the critics not knowing what they are talking about? They are treating this film like the plot is a copy of some tired previous SF movie. Gentlemen, this is the serial, the book, the plot, that started the whole craze for SF adventure in the pulps. Sure, there was H.G. Wells before Burroughs, but Wells is on a higher literary level for sure. Though he appeared in the pulps, it was mainly through reprints.

The critics do not realize the impact in 1912 that Under the Moons of Mars had on the typical reader of popular magazines. It was like a bolt out of the sky shocking the reader who was hungry for imaginative literature.

Things would never be the same after this serial in 1912. All-Story went on to publish scores of SF adventures and in 1926 the first SF pulp appeared. For many years after, readers in the letter columns requested reprints from the great old Munsey pulps. Then in 1939, a magazine was created that did indeed reprint the Munsey science fiction stories from All-Story, Argosy, and Cavalier. It was called Famous Fantastic Mysteries and is today considered one of the best looking and prettiest pulps ever published.

So, to the jaded critics of today, sure John Carter has some faults, but in 1912 this story was a stunning achievement. Even decades later, readers would be amazed by the Mars books.

I know I was at the age of nine years old. In the early 1950’s, I remember my father giving me a stack of the Mars and Tarzan novels and saying how great they were. A year later, I had read and reread them all, and used to think of which books I would try to save if the house ever caught on fire. My answer was always the same: the books by Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Now, I’m not saying this movie is great, after all it has been 60 years since Burroughs grabbed hold of me. But it is good and not as bad as the critics are saying.

As I was coming out of the theater, there were two young boys ahead of me, both of them jumping up and down with excitement. To me they looked to be around nine or ten years old, the same young age that I once was back when I first discovered John Carter and his adventures. One said to the other “Wasn’t John Carter great!,” and his friend replied that the movie was cool. They then started talking about seeing it again.

There may have been only 15 or 20 people in the theater when I went for the noon showing but seeing these two kids made me realize once again Burroughs still had that power to excite, just like he must have excited readers in 1912. I have a feeling that John Carter may be a failure on this initial release, but like Blade Runner, it will be considered a success many years later.

This is a beautiful, insightful commentary. I haven’t seen the picture just clips, but I found in the little available, the leading players were wanting. Critics write about other things, but all that matters ultimately is star power. Not names as such, but people will become names. Our industry is about people, all else relates to the presentation of those people. I read several John Carter and Tarzan books in my early teens. Loved them.

I too have not seen it. Walker, everything you wrote is true but that is the problem with the film. It changed the world one hundred years ago, but people don’t see movies for that reason. They want to see something they have not seen before.

The media has a hard time covering entertainment using numbers. They explain that a movie money comes from many places, the American box office, foreign box office, and DVD/streaming sales. Yet in the first week of American box office sales, the media declared the film a bomb. There are some studio politics tossed in as most of Hollywood love a good Disney disaster. Overseas numbers, last I heard, were good but not great. That leaves the DVD market to save the financial side of the picture. I think it is safe to call it a bomb but things may be different at the end of the year.

The critics’ problems seem to be it was too loyal to Burroughs and so much of Burroughs have been used in films such as STAR WARS that it lacks excitement and surprise.

What made Burroughs special was he took readers to a place they had never been before, experienced excitement and adventure they had never dreamed before. I can’t blame audiences today for wanting the same experience, something they can’t get from a one hundred year old story told to them countless times before.

But then it could have been worse. The filmmakers could have tried to improve Burroughs.

Steve in an email to me mentions that he is planning on seeing the movie soon since he wants to see it on the big screen. If you are a collector or reader of the pulps and the Burroughs books, then you definitely should see this film. They might start pulling it off the screens soon as it becomes obvious that it is not going to be the hoped for blockbuster.

One collector on a pulp discussion group mentioned that all collectors of the old magazines should see this film or turn in their collecting credentials. It really does represent what the pulps were all about, in addition to being being an SF classic.

During the past 50 years, I’ve often had the daydream of what I’d do if I ever had access to a time machine. One of the things would be to visit the 1912 newstands and obtain copies of ALL STORY containing UNDER THE MOONS OF MARS and the Tarzan novel in the October issue. Guess I’m still just a kid at heart…

Saw the movie in IMAX 3D. Liked it a lot. If you look at Rotten Tomatoes half the critics liked it – it seems to be one of those pictures that you either connect with or you don’t. Roger Ebert gave it two and a half out of four stars. The movie is not so much a bomb as suffering from the worst previews ever – I had no desire to see the movie until Disney put up a 5 minute sequence (the fight with the white apes) and then I saw what was going on. They don’t mention Edgar Rice Burroughs or Tarzan anywhere in the ads – no one knows anything about these books anymore. They have been out of print for years. Run to the theater and see this while it is still available – and see it in 3D – it has some of the best 3D I have seen. Not things popping out of the screen – just giving the picture depth. It is a solid B movie.

The last time I looked at IMDb.com the movie had over 18,000 voters giving it a 7.1 rating, which is a good rating of 7 out of 10. But Disney simply spent too much on the movie and in order to get their money back the movie would have to have been one of the all time big hits. I heard months ago that it was way over budget and eventually reached $250 million plus another $100 million on promotion ads, etc.

Very insightful article Walker. I went to the first show the day it was released and it was quite well attended. I heard no negative comments on my way out. I too read the book at about the same age that you did (pretty sure I got a copy from my school library) and I loved it. The film gave me a lot of the same joy the book did so many years ago.
Why O’why did they call it John Carter and not Under The Moons Of Mars? Egad, I actually read a comment that the person thought the movie was about Jimmy Carter when he heard the title.
I suspect that today all movies have to be cynical to succeed in some “critics” minds.
I told my son that I long for the old days before every movie was critiqued before it was even released. We would just go because we had seen a trailer and thought a movie looked like fun.
I’m going to be saving my nickels so I can buy this film when it comes out on video as it is a film that I am going to want to watch again and again whenever I need cheered up.

A very nice article! Thank you! I’m a huge fan of the film, and the books. I’ve seen the movie 5 times now and want to again. Something about it makes me want to return to that world, and how perfect is that, since that is how John Carter felt about Barsoom, both in the books and in the film! I must add that it took the second viewing for me to fall in love with the film. The first time was a bit like a dream, so I didn’t “get” it fully. But the second time was utter magic, and I can honestly say even the 5th time, I got goosebumps, chills, giddy, and even tears. Yep… it’s so different, the way it’s made, that it takes getting used to. Blade Runner did that to me as well. I hope those of you here who have not gone will go see it soon. I fear people in the US not going to see it have already thwarted any chance for a sequel! It breaks my heart!

Barry mentions how he used to go to the movies because he saw the trailer and it looked like fun. As a child I would just automatically go to the Broad Theater in Trenton, NJ every Saturday, rain or shine. I usually did not know what was playing; all I knew was that I loved the double features and would watch whatever they were showing: westerns, mysteries, musicals, science fiction, drama.

Back in the 1950’s the price of admission was a quarter and popcorn would be another quarter. When I went to the JOHN CARTER noon showing last Saturday I paid $6.00 to get in(usually I pay more but I guess the noon price is cheaper), and $6.50 for a medium popcorn. Think of the inflation involved; what used to cost me 50 cents 55 years ago, now costs $12.50.

I fear Khanada in Comment #7 is correct. There will be no sequel because the latest estimates show Disney as losing $200 million on this film. If it had been successful, then we would have seen sequels but no way will producers back another John Carter movie.

It’s a shame because it is not a bad movie and one I intend seeing again on dvd.

For a long detailed analysis of the film, including its literary background, the story itself, the actors, the music, what was changed, what worked and what didn’t, please check out Scott Parker’s blog:

I don’t think he’ll mind if I quote a few sentences from a spot close to the end of the review:

“I’m thankful for Disney who put up the money to make a giant pet project that millions of readers and viewers adore, no matter the final financial outcome. I’m thankful that movies like this are still being made, movies that entertain and thrill with no other ulterior motive than that. I’m thankful that there are moments in this movie where I wanted to stand up and cheer, where chills coursed over my arms, where my jaw dropped at the sheer size of the spectacle before me, and whose closing scene had me grinning like the eleven year old that I still am when it comes to this material.”

I think the above quote sums up what I meant by capturing the pulp spirit of the film. I also would like to add that I was struck by the beauty of the lady who played The Princess. She’s a real knockout and I had trouble eating my popcorn everytime she appeared on screen.

I’ve not kept track, as say in an official scorecard, so far I’ve seen a lot of fan-based blowback against the nay-saying critics with regards to this film.

I haven’t seen it yet myself, so my opinions are useless and obviously aren’t of any good to anybody, including me, but I have a feeling that maybe, just maybe, the comparisons to BLADE RUNNER are going to be right on target.

From what I have read I believe fans of Burroughs will love the film, and those of us who finds Burroughs less appealing will find the film the same.

Forget the numbers you are reading. There have been many box office failures get a sequel because of its DVD and overseas numbers. One of the greatest truisms of Hollywood is the most creative people in town are the studio accountants.

I just checked IMBb.com and so far almost 20,000 voters have registered and the rating is still a good rating of 7.1. In addition over 300 viewers have commented on the movie and unlike the movie critics, most of them like it.

This movie is getting favorable feedback from the movie goers and it looks like it is a success except where it matters, at the box office. Hopefully foreign and dvd sales will come close to making a dent in the $350 million already spent.

Watched the movie last weekend with my 18-year-old son, who has never read Burroughs, and we both loved it. Came home, eventually looked through Entertainment Weekly’s review, and figured the critic and I had seen two different movies. Oh, well, there’s no accounting for taste. In my family, we call this one a keeper.

Much of the above will remain moot since Disney has already admitted to losing 200 million on the film. Pity. I came to the Mars series by way of the Dell comic books and when the books were really hard to find. I thought A Princess of Mars was one of the weirdest stories I’d ever read. One of the things that fascinated me about it was the amount of space devoted to John Carter’s learning the Martian language and culture. It should have been dull writing, but EB made it really compelling. After seeing the movie I drove to a Kmart and bought the novelization that includes the original story as well. I am re-reading that even as we speak.

You’ve got to wonder who’s running the show at Disney. First a bad title and an inept ad campaign, now “admitting” the movie’s a flop before the all the returns are in. Almost looks like internal sabotage to me.

One of the reasons big stars such as James Garner have their own production companies is to make sure the studios don’t cheat them. The studios love to claim hits, but when it comes to sharing those hits profits, according to the accountant, those hits lost money.

JOHN CARTER lost money and opened poorly in America, but is doing well overseas. The possibility of a sequel in a few years may be slim, and if one is made it will have a smaller budget. Fans biggest hope will be huge DVD sales by fans who are eager for a John Carter ride at Disneyland. Disney needs something to replace the Pirates of the Caribbean rides.

Not only are the reviews by SF, fantasy and adventure fans more favorable than those by professional critics, but this fan-produced trailer is far far better than any of those I’ve seen done by Disney.

Because of my interest in Edgar Rice Burroughs and my pulp collection containing so many of his stories, I have been very interested in reading the reviews, both by professional critics and the movie going public.

Though there are exceptions, the difference is like night and day. The professional critics often do not understand spirit of adventure shown so well in the film, while the amateur viewer and reviewer see the movie as a far more successful effort.

It’s a shame the critics put the curse on the film so soon because this movie looks like it will be a cult classic in years to come.

Someone named Jim left the following comment, excerpted. I don’t know how much truth is in it, but the question remains, why no Burger King toys?

“Reality Check. This film was greenlit by an executive at the studio who was no longer there. The guy who took his place felt he could not afford to have the old boss have a hit so it was sabotaged. A few phone calls to reporters in the entertainment biz expressing his bogus concerns about how it would flop, a few gift packages to media reporters and the seeds for media damage were sewn. Think I am paranoid? Why did this DISNEY film have no merchandise to help recover losses? Why were there no cross marketing efforts at Taco Bell or MacDonalds to promote it? Because its the oldest tale in Tinseltown. Its not enough to steal somebody else’s job. You have to make sure you trash that person’s efforts so they never get offered that job back — or a better job at another company.”

I would not be as harsh as that, but the point is valid. Nobody stole anybody’s job. It is normal Hollywood to make sure the person you replace does not look good. Your bosses need to believe you and not the last person is the answer to their problems. This is what I meant in comment 2 when I mentioned studio politics. (That and other studios always laugh and dance on the failures of their competition).

He has a very valid point about merchandising. But more important, why wasn’t this released in the summer?

Deadline.com had been predicting the film’s death for awhile and used the early lack of interest as proof they were right. Hollywood Reporter, who has a nasty war of words and lawyers going on with Deadline, tried to paint the numbers in a positive light, but gave up when rest of the media sided with the bomb theory.

The people behind the film have been too successful and stepped on too many toes. Much of Hollywood wanted this movie to bomb. Pixar (director came from Pixar) may be loved by the public, but they have their enemies in Hollywood.

The result is the birth of a cult film that years from now everyone will view with rose colored glasses. I have read the books and the reviews from both sides. The negative reviews about the film are exactly how I feel about the books. I found the premise of him falling asleep in a cave and waking up naked on Mars silly. I found the characters boring and the action routine. But so what?

If you liked it, great. This one has a spin on it right now that tells me JOHN CARTER will not be forgotten.

I’ve heard some critics say the plot was a mess and overly convoluted. Really? My suggestion to them is “don’t text while watching a movie, you might miss something”. I found the plot fairly well done and actually made sense (if only the last Star Trek film had that going for it) and was interesting to boot.

If you happen to be attending the Windy City Pulp Convention April 27-29, there will be a free showing of the movie in a theater within walking distance of the hotel. Free passes will be available as you register Thursday night, April 26. This movie is worth a second viewing.

At the Windy City Pulp Convention I was in the crowded hospitality room when free passes were passed out at around 9:30 pm for the 10 pm showing. The room was empty within minutes and only a couple collectors were left. I heard nothing but good things about the movie all weekend. I sure this film will be remembered as one of the good movies unfairly axed at the beginning by the critics and the media.

The negative reviews of John Carter are one of the reasons I don’t bother with the current bunch of film critics anymore; all of them are obsessed with Sundance and what comes out of Sundance, and those movies are all that they care about. That’s why they were negative towards the Star Wars prequel trilogy, towards this film, and towards anything fantasy related (with a fewnotableexceptions. I would also just encourage people to listen to critics less and themselves more, especially regarding films like John Carter.

The IMDb site has JOHN CARTER: THE GODS OF MARS listed with question marks where a date should be. I have a suggestion. Why not make the Carter books into a mini-series like GAME OF THRONES? Disney has a television division, or, if they feel snakebit, sell the rights. Bet someone will pick it up and do an amazing job. My understanding was the director of the movie wanted a hand in making the trailers for JOHN CARTER, but was told “no”. This falls right in with the other comments hinting at a concerted effort to undermine the movie. What makes me laugh, Disney buys Lucas’ company and wants a STAR WARS movie in theatres by 2015. What better way to re-coup the cash spent on JC.

#30. Joel, this is where ego and covering your butt gets involved. The head of Disney Movie was fired after this, no executive wants to risk a career trying to convince the bosses to try again.

A low budget TV series is always a possibility, but a movie is unlikely.

Anybody know the actual sale figure for the DVD? Did it sell well among the masses?

There is no outcry among the media or young audience demanding its return. The character has never had much appeal among the masses. And before Walker drops by to beat me up, there was no radio show nor TV show featuring John Carter.

As for Disney budget. It has all ready been written off, the stockholders given the heads of the executives in charge. Any money made or lost would be tied to this quarter’s budget/profits.

Once the memory of the disaster has faded, Disney could return to the property. Personally, it would be great as a cartoon for the Disney cable kids channel.

The idea of a cartoon on the Disney network would be acceptable. Disney did 35 half hour cartoons after the animated big feature TARZAN came out, so why not? The reviews of JOHN CARTER on the IMDb site are generally positive. Disney should look at that and re-think their approach to JC. Anyway, as long as the people in charge go forward with the Mars universe that ERB created, whether it is live action or animated, then interest in the source material can expand the casual reader who only know ERB through the Tarzan stories.

I just read an article stating that the movie JOHN CARTER has taken over the top spot in DVD sales. It is now obvious that the film was sabotaged by someone at Disney Studios either on purpose or by pure stupidity. Only in Hollywood…

Sadly, DVD sales don’t mean as much today as they used to with many turning to streaming or downloading sites. In the past it was not unusual for DVD to make more money for the movie than domestic box office or international sales. Today, as you can see from JOHN CARTER, international sales often is a movie’s top source of income.

Many believe bad marketing was the major cause with the film’s lack of success.